Should we cross ourselves in prayer?
- Thread starter Hamalas
- Start date
- Status
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Adiaphora in my opinion
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Thank you Jonathan, your logic is impeccable.
Well.... maybe it's a little bit peccable.
Well.... maybe it's a little bit peccable.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Vampires don't like the sign of the cross.
God loves vampires.
Therefore, we shouldn't make the sign of the cross because it might offend a vampire for whom Christ died.
No.
Brian Withnell
Puritan Board Junior
Fully understand your position. I'd want to be careful about it though ... while we don't want to cause a weaker brother to stumble
but we also should not allow our conscience to be bound by what others think
The ideal is to teach the weaker brother so he is not bruised in conscience by what is not forbidden and part of circumstance.
Of course that presupposes it isn't "out there" and done for show, or in such a way as it is inconsiderate of others (prostration during prayer is rather hard to ignore, and answering the question "what if everyone tried to do this" would make it obvious that it would be inappropriate (people would be all over the floor!)
Of course that still does not address is it circumstance or element.
-----Added 3/4/2009 at 10:50:13 EST-----
Interesting. The OPC standards don't have anything on the subject. Some of my view also comes from seeing Jewish expression. They don't bow their heads, close their eyes, fold hands ... my brother is on Jewish convert, and I was surprised that at one point during his daughter's wedding that they called for prayer and nobody moved. No heads bowed, eyes closed, nothing. (I was with the rest of the "gentiles" and was more a spectator than anything else.)
There seems to be a full range of ideas on the subject...
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Okay, don't tear me apart, honest question:
It was explained to me as a form of "sign language" meaning "with all my mind, all my heart, and all my strength" (however, I confess, I don't have crosses in my home). I'm just curious as to the response to this explaination, as it doesn't appear to have any superstition attached to it.
It was explained to me as a form of "sign language" meaning "with all my mind, all my heart, and all my strength" (however, I confess, I don't have crosses in my home). I'm just curious as to the response to this explaination, as it doesn't appear to have any superstition attached to it.
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
No. Emphatically no. What could possibly be the reason to do this that is not superstitious? This ritual benefits no one in prayer. We come to the Father relying on the blood of Christ alone. I don't recommend receiving instruction from the Eastern "Orthadox". If it is acknowledged that they believe heresy when it comes to so many important issues why do we think they should instruct us (protestants) in prayer?
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
And yet that can open a can of worms on other practices that the majority of Christianity practice, even Reformed, that came out of the OC and RC...so where is the line? RPW?
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
I think much of that practice is for practical benefit (not being distracted). Regardless, pointing out that we may do somethings that are superstitious (some people may turn it into that) in the reformed faith doesn't mean that its ok to cross ourselves.
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
Many Reformed people don't. I personally enjoy it as a gathering of family.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm aware of that, and I don't either. Yet I find it interesting the adamancy on simple things like crossing oneself, insisting it's superstitious, yet those same people will hang crosses in their home (more superstitious in my opinion) and carry over other practices.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Personally I would like to do so as it would give me a 'sense' of something I do long to sense: being hidden in Christ's cross. (It would probably also give me a very supportive sense of being very religious; and perhaps even a flavor of kneeling on a stone floor while people are chanting which I fear I would greatly enjoy But I know it is not my feeling of being covered in the cross that I ought to pursue but the reality, or the feeling of being 'very religious' (or of kneeling on stone floors) that make me so; and I know that this desire for 'feelings' is the attraction for so much extrabiblical worship. So I think it would be very dangerous for me. I think sometimes the 'aesthetic' appeal is bound into the same desire to 'feel' something, just on a more goosebumpy level: whereas the worship God has commanded in this era partakes of the simplicity and offense of the cross in its jarring inner reality, not just as a beautiful outward motion. It's not that feelings aren't part of reality; but they're the part that's supposed to learn to follow, not the part that is supposed to lead. Of course there are different ways to make the mistake of 'leading' with them: I sometimes wonder if the real difference between a charismatic and an EO isn't ultimately that one of them has better taste.
I can't say that I would judge another person who stopped with this sign (though all those I know [elsewhere] who are open to this are also open to icons etc); but for myself I think it would be too dangerous to give in to that particular kind of desire.
But I know it is not my feeling of being covered in the cross that I ought to pursue but the reality, or the feeling of being 'very religious' (or of kneeling on stone floors) that make me so; and I know that this desire for 'feelings' is the attraction for so much extrabiblical worship. So I think it would be very dangerous for me. I think sometimes the 'aesthetic' appeal is bound into the same desire to 'feel' something, just on a more goosebumpy level: whereas the worship God has commanded in this era partakes of the simplicity and offense of the cross in its jarring inner reality, not just as a beautiful outward motion. It's not that feelings aren't part of reality; but they're the part that's supposed to learn to follow, not the part that is supposed to lead. Of course there are different ways to make the mistake of 'leading' with them: I sometimes wonder if the real difference between a charismatic and an EO isn't ultimately that one of them has better taste.I can't say that I would judge another person who stopped with this sign (though all those I know [elsewhere] who are open to this are also open to icons etc); but for myself I think it would be too dangerous to give in to that particular kind of desire.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I think the fear is not superstitious, but is more of worshipping God in a way He has not commanded and so telling ourselves sometimes very subtle lies about Him -- if God alone has the right to reveal Himself and to tell us what is acceptable to Him and we realize how corrupt our own minds are in making a god after our own image then yes it does produce a lot of caution in an area like this?
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
This was sort of discussed earlier in the thread. I don't see how crossing onself is "worshipping God in a way He has not commanded." Maybe you can enlighten me on this.
People adopt various postures and habits in prayer that are not expressly endorsed in the bible -- indeed, some seem to go against the scriptural example -- and nobody has a problem with those. I refer to bowing the head or clasping the hands and so forth. When we pray, we pray through the cross of Christ, so how is making the sign of the cross dangerous?
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Louis, I don't believe I have said that crossing oneself is worshipping God in a way He has not commanded? I cited the fear of doing so as a reason for caution in an area that is not addressed by Scripture. As I understand the regulative principle, God tells us what is acceptable to Him in worship. God has not told us that this sign has any significance to edify etc. As such, I have explained above why I believe that making the sign of the cross is dangerous for me: I would attach to it a certain importance as a means of grace (in conveying feelings of grace). If we attach a sense of power or grace to symbols God has not commanded in His worship then yes we are worshipping in violation of the RPW. If as others have mentioned, it's merely a way of focusing attention, as I said earlier, I would not judge a person. Thanks for the interaction.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
But I am currently reading Lord God of Truth/Concerning the Teacher by Gordon Clark and Augustine, respectively, and in it both of them really, really stress the fact that Christ's teaching us within (by means of immediate knowledge-giving) is what is important. That is, in fact, the purpose of speech and revelation. Anyway, such a teaching really stresses the importance of knowledge and of an inner love of God by means of our rational soul, contrary to any physical or superstitious rituals such as making a cross to bring good luck or whatever.
Your comment brought this to mind
)) and just tied a couple aspects of my worldview together. So thank you.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Your statement, like many of the others in this thread, betrays a lot of arrogance by implying special knowledge about the motives and intentions of a large group of people.
I think it would also be helpful if you, and some of the others using highly critical rhetoric, would define your terms. First, what is superstition? Second, what is a ritual, and is something bad simply because it is a ritual?
Your last statement also falls short. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics also believe in the trinity. Should we disregard that because we disagree with other teachings of theirs?
**
As to the issue of worship, the sign of the cross is not directed towards others; it is directed towards oneself. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of "what God has commanded us to offer Him in worship." It's like memorizing and reciting a scripture verse, only physical instead of mental. Would anyone say that it's "ritualistic" or "superstitious" to quote a favorite bible verse when faced with a moment of temptation?
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
I see crossing oneself in prayer in the same category as posture. No one says you must cross/not cross, nor sit/stand/kneel, nor fold hands/raise hands, nor eyes closed/eyes open, nor speak out loud/speak in mind, in order to make it a real prayer. All these fall under Christian liberty.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
I am aware this was directed at Manley, but regardless...
It would only imply the knowledge of what nearly always occurs with rituals: they become ritualistic; i.e., rather than reminding people of some truth (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or whatever else it may signify), it becomes just an example of "going through the motions." Instead, rather than memorizing some ritual, people should memorize whatever it signifies and thereby submit their mind to the Lord. For instance, it is much more beneficial to remember to thank the Lord before eating one's food than it is to make sure your eyes are closed a specific amount of time before you begin your consumption. This is not the best example, though, as the latter necessarily accompanies the former. Nonetheless, it would be beneficial if people simply train themselves to think of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify, rather than train themselves to merely do the ritual, which will almost inevitably become...ritualistic. Moreover, when we believe that by merely doing the ritual (going through the motions) we are doing something good, we are clearly not doing something good.
Superstition would be some things carried out because they are believed to achieve good fortune or good standing with God not due to our faith, but ex opere operato. For instance, Romanist baptism is superstitious. The Romanist Eucharist is superstitious. A ritual is usually defined under the auspices of superstition, i.e. an event which is superstitious. Inasmuch as superstition is bad, then, rituals are bad too.
He didn't say that everything in the Churches is bad, but merely that we should not trust them on some doctrine which we ourselves cannot verify in Scripture. In other words, if they have so much heresy, we should not follow their doctrines or practices merely on their word.
I would disagree. When people make the sign of the cross they are clearly doing it towards God or with respect to God. That's why it often precedes prayer. Memorizing Bible verses is simply an act of learning about God which is not worship, strictly speaking. But I would say that anything related to prayer falls under the category of worship.
It would only imply the knowledge of what nearly always occurs with rituals: they become ritualistic; i.e., rather than reminding people of some truth (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or whatever else it may signify), it becomes just an example of "going through the motions." Instead, rather than memorizing some ritual, people should memorize whatever it signifies and thereby submit their mind to the Lord. For instance, it is much more beneficial to remember to thank the Lord before eating one's food than it is to make sure your eyes are closed a specific amount of time before you begin your consumption. This is not the best example, though, as the latter necessarily accompanies the former. Nonetheless, it would be beneficial if people simply train themselves to think of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify, rather than train themselves to merely do the ritual, which will almost inevitably become...ritualistic. Moreover, when we believe that by merely doing the ritual (going through the motions) we are doing something good, we are clearly not doing something good.
Superstition would be some things carried out because they are believed to achieve good fortune or good standing with God not due to our faith, but ex opere operato. For instance, Romanist baptism is superstitious. The Romanist Eucharist is superstitious. A ritual is usually defined under the auspices of superstition, i.e. an event which is superstitious. Inasmuch as superstition is bad, then, rituals are bad too.
He didn't say that everything in the Churches is bad, but merely that we should not trust them on some doctrine which we ourselves cannot verify in Scripture. In other words, if they have so much heresy, we should not follow their doctrines or practices merely on their word.
I would disagree. When people make the sign of the cross they are clearly doing it towards God or with respect to God. That's why it often precedes prayer. Memorizing Bible verses is simply an act of learning about God which is not worship, strictly speaking. But I would say that anything related to prayer falls under the category of worship.
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
The line is SCRIPTURE.. RPW, Confessions, sessions, councils, elders, deacons, etc etc etc do not draw the line. We can talk personal opinions until our heads explode, but as Christians, the WORD is the line. The answer is in the Bible.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You're a rationalist, so you know that your own argument here is wrong. It doesn't really matter what normally happens; experience does not yield knowledge. How about a reductio ad absurdum? Going to church every Sunday is also ritualistic. Celebrating the eucharist is ritualistic. Your very argument is, in fact, why most American Christians have rejected traditional Christianity. It would seem, then, that something more than the charge of "ritualistic" is necessary. Furthermore, your borderline gnosticism is a bit disconcerting. People should just train themselves to think of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify? That may be the Anabaptist and Marcionite position, but orthodox Christians do not reject matter and the influence it has on the soul.
Confessor said:
First, Roman Catholic theology does not teach that the sacraments act without regard to the disposition of the recipient. This is a false notion, and if you want to be a philosopher you need to represent your opponents accurately.
Roman Catholic Catechism 1128 said:
Second, inasmuch as you are wrong about the meaning of ex opere operato, you are wrong to equate superstition with ritual. For you, ritual means anything you choose not do repeatedly (though many Christians find plenty of things we Reformed do to be ritualistic), but that others may. For you, anything to which you personally do not ascribe meaning is superstitious.
He didn't say that everything in the Churches is bad, but merely that we should not trust them on some doctrine which we ourselves cannot verify in Scripture. In other words, if they have so much heresy, we should not follow their doctrines or practices merely on their word.
Confessor said:
Well, as someone once said, that's your opinion. I believe you are again speaking in ignorance, perhaps because you do not like Catholics and Orthodox because of other opinions they hold, and are ready to accept any accusation against them, no matter how ill-informed or prejudiced, without the proper scrutiny. You aren't allowed to simply make up whatever meaning you want and then attribute it to other people.
Aside from individuals crossing themselves, priests make the sign of the cross over their congregations, over the recipients of baptism, over those being confirmed, over the elements of the eucharist, etc. It is patently obvious that God is not the object of the sign.
By the way, when I speak of ignorance, I mean it in the plainest sense of the word, i.e. simply not knowing. I do not mean it to be derogatory.
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
If God is not the object of it, or in ANY way glorified by it, how can it be justified in His worship?
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jeffrey,
Again, you and the other detractors are simply asserting that God does not receive any glory from this. That you cannot fathom it at this moment does not make it so.
And by "object" I'm speaking in grammatical terms. The person making the sign of the cross is not "signing" God, but God doesn't only receive glory from shouts of praise directly to him. I'm sure everyone here knows this, which is why I suspect that the general disagreeableness is due more to a "hands over the ears" posture than anything else.
Again, you and the other detractors are simply asserting that God does not receive any glory from this. That you cannot fathom it at this moment does not make it so.
And by "object" I'm speaking in grammatical terms. The person making the sign of the cross is not "signing" God, but God doesn't only receive glory from shouts of praise directly to him. I'm sure everyone here knows this, which is why I suspect that the general disagreeableness is due more to a "hands over the ears" posture than anything else.
- Status
